Thanks to all the people who donated to the Cyrus cemetery last year. We on the hilltop try to keep everything clean. My son, grandson and I mow, trim and keep graves filled in and grass and good dirt on top.
If you need anything, just call me or come to my home on top of the hill.
Precedents kept for impeachment
I would like to respond to the letter published Feb. 7 regarding the precedents set by the impeachment trial.
I thought the letter was very good — full of quotes by notable and admirable individuals that have, in some cases, influenced our way of thinking. It also mentioned checks and balances which our founders did not expect would fail.
The final paragraph of this letter, in my opinion, invalidated the entire argument, most notably the checks and balances comment.
The House (the prosecution) had every opportunity to exercise their oversight.
They also had the constitutional responsibility to compile a case which they could present to a jury (the Senate) which would leave no doubt regarding the guilt of the accused (the president). They had legal avenues to pursue evidence that was required to reach that standard. But they chose not to exercise their right to subpoena what and who they needed to solidify their case.
The judicial system is the constitutional remedy to settle disputes between branches of government, when necessary, to obtain evidence. Sometimes that takes time. Regardless of the time and effort required, it remains their responsibility to compile the evidence and present it to the jury.
It is never the jury’s responsibility to call witnesses or ask for additional witnesses.
In the final analysis, it wasn’t an unfair trial lacking witnesses and documents.
It was a failure by the prosecution (the House) to obtain and present the necessary documents and witnesses to the jury (the Senate), which would have led them to the conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In my opinion, a precedent was preserved in the impeachment trial.
Mt. Pleasant, S.C.